DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument regarding the prior arts have been further considered and deemed persuasive and thus the claim are now rejected over new ground of rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed recently regarding the prior art lacking such aspect “input parameter, exceed a computational capacity of the first network device”, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
But, as previously, mentioned Mukesh et al. did explicitly as argue confirm of a “buffer memory, which if parameters receive exceed its memory” then, yes, one of the alternative function, may be perform may include, such “server to provide the function” see (“col.15 line 35-45/yes the function(s) may include a server to process the issue if the memory buffer reached a particular capacity”) is read broadly as mentioned according the generic unction as claimed.
Furthermore, the mentioned aspect as in Zad disclose of such similar aspect corresponding the input parameter corresponds to a voice command or query (col.6 line 1-7). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such aspect regarding the noted input parameter as mentioned by specifying the noted prior art by adding such input parameter corresponds to a voice command or query so as to adjust the input parameter according to user’s input voice or query command.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim (s) 3, 6-7, 18, 21-22, 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if overcome any un-statutory rejection wherein applicable and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 12-13, 15-16, 23-27, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukesh et al. (US 12,327,133 B1) and Cappello et al. (US 11,653,167 B2).
Claim 1, Mukesh et al. disclose of a first network device comprising: a network interface; one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first network device to perform operations; comprising: receiving an input parameter (fig.1 (110/170; fig.2 ; col.6 line 50-67; col.7 line 15-30/the input parameter may be sent to device); determining, via a certain model, that a task associated with the received input parameter exceed a computational capacity of the first network device (col.15 line 35-45); transmitting, via the network interface, a request to one or more second network devices to perform an action associated with the task (fig.1 (180);col.5 line 30-40 & col.15 line 35-45).
However. Mukesh et al. never specify of the model being determined being related to a generative AI model, but it shall be noted Cappello et al. disclose of aspect related to model being determined being related to a generative AI model according to input signal (fig.2; col.6 line 35-60). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the prior art by adding such specific model being determined being related to a generative AI model according to input signal so as to provide the high quality signal according to certain context.
The art further disclose of receiving, via the network interface, a response from at least one of the one or more second network devices, wherein the response corresponds to an action performed by the at least one of the one or more second network devices (fig.1 (110/180); fig.2; col.15 line 40-67; col.14 line 35-67), and causing a set of one or more outputs associated with the received response (col.14 line 35-67).
(New) The first network device of claim 1, further comprising a display, wherein causing the set of one or more outputs associated with the received response comprises causing a visual output via the display (fig.2 (204); col.11 line 30-40/visual feedback).
(New) The first network device of claim 1, wherein the computational capacity comprises at least one of processing capacity or memory capacity (Mu-col.15 line 35-42).
(New) The first network device of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more second network devices is a remote computing device (Mu-fig.1 (110/180)).
Claim 15, the first network device of claim 14, but the prior art never specify as wherein the first generative Al model is within the computational capacity of the first network device and the one or more second generative Al models exceed the computational capacity of the first network device.
However, the art as in Mukesh disclose of performing at distinct network devices and distributions generative models associated to handle computational loads, and thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have if desired varied the computational capacity by adding if desired the first generative Al model is within the computational capacity of the first network device and the one or more second generative Al models exceed the computational capacity of the first network device for achieving the same result as to handle the expenses with computational loads.
Claim 16, the prior art disclose of a method, performed by a first network device comprising a network interface and one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving an input parameter (fig.1 (110/170; fig.2 ; col.6 line 50-67; col.7 line 15-30/the input parameter may be sent to device); determining, via a model, that a task associated with the received input parameter exceed a computational capacity of the first network device (col.15 line 35-45); The prior art further disclose of transmitting, via the network interface, a request to one or more second network devices to perform an action associated with the task (fig.1 (180);col.5 line 30-40 & col.15 line 35-45).
However. Mukesh et al. never specify of the model being determined being related to a generative AI model, but it shall be noted Cappello et al. disclose of aspect related to model being determined being related to a generative AI model according to input signal (fig.2; col.6 line 35-60). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the prior art by adding such specific model being determined being related to a generative AI model according to input signal so as to provide the high quality signal according to certain context.
The art further disclose as receiving, via the network interface, a response from at least one of the one or more second network devices, wherein the response corresponds to an action performed by the at least one of the one or more second network devices (fig.1 (110/180); fig.2; col.15 line 40-67; col.14 line 35-67); and causing a set of one or more outputs associated with the received response ((col.14 line 35-67).
The claim(s) 27 which in substance disclose of the similar features as noted in claim(s) 1 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
The claim(s) 23-26 which in substance disclose of the similar features as noted in claim(s) 8-10, 12 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
The claim(s) 27, 30 which in substance disclose of the similar features as noted in claim(s) 1, 12 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukesh et al. (US 12,327,133 B1) and Cappello et al. (US 11,653,167 B2) and Zad (US 9, 837,102 B2).
11. (New) The first network device of claim 1, wherein the input parameter is mentioned therein ,but none of the prior art disclose of input parameter corresponds to a voice command or query.
However, the art as in Zad disclose of such similar aspect corresponding the input parameter corresponds to a voice command or query (col.6 line 1-7). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such aspect regarding the noted input parameter as mentioned by specifying the noted prior art by adding such input parameter corresponds to a voice command or query so as to adjust the input parameter according to user’s input voice or query command.
Claim(s) 2, 17, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukesh et al. (US 12,327,133 B1) and Cappello et al. (US 11,653,167 B2)) and Newendorp et al. (US 11,587,559 B2).
Claim 2, The first network device of claim 1 (col.3 line 5-10), but the art never specify as further comprising one or more output device, wherein causing the set of one or more outputs associated with the received response comprises causing, via the output device to playback content accordingly (col.6 line 5-10/any output and including data stream may be provided).,
Although, the art never specify of the output related to one or more audio transducers, playback of audio content. But Newendorp et al. disclose of the similar concept regarding having such system with output related to one or more audio transducers, playback of audio content (col.14 line 35-50). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted output related to one or more audio transducers, playback of audio content so as to provide the audio result accordingly.
The claim(s) 17, 28 which in substance disclose of the similar features as noted in claim(s) 2 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 9-10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukesh et al. (US 12,327,133 B1) and Cappello et al. (US 11,653,167 B2).
(New) The first network device of claim 1, however, the prior art never mentioned as wherein generating the set of one or more outputs associated with the received response comprises (i) generating, via the first generative Al model stored on the first network device, a first type of media content and (ii) generating, via the second generative Al model stored on at least one of the one or more second network devices, a second type of media content.
However, the prior art as in Mukesh et al. disclose of such aspect concerning generating the set of one or more outputs associated with the received response comprises (i) generating, via the first l model stored on the first network device, a first type of media content and (ii) generating, via the second model stored on at least one of the one or more second network devices, a second type of media content as noted therein (col.15 line 35-45); thus ,although, the art never specify of the model as previously mentioned being related to generative AI model for the first and second network device, however, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art with generative AI as mentioned by Cappello by adding if desired such respective first and second network device with AI model to be generated for achieving the same result as implementing offloading dependent on capacity of the local network devices.
Claim 10, the first network device of claim 1, further comprising: a first model stored in the first network device and wherein the set of one or more outputs associated with the received response comprises output generated by the model stored on the first network device and output generated by a second model stored on the second network devices(col.15 line 35-45).
thus ,although, the art never specify of the model as previously mentioned being related to generative AI model for the first and second network device, however, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art with generative AI as mentioned by Cappello by adding if desired such respective first and second network device with AI model to be generated for achieving the same result as implementing offloading dependent on capacity of the local network devices.
Claim 14, (New) The first network device of claim 1,wherein the model is a first model, and wherein transmitting the request to the one or more second network devices to perform the action associated with the task comprises a request to have one or more second models stored on the one or more second network devices perform the action associated with the task as mentioned as mentioned .
Although, the art never specify of the model as previously mentioned being related to generative AI model stored on the second network device, however, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art with generative AI as mentioned by Cappello by adding if desired such respective network device with AI model to be stored on the second device generated for achieving the same result as implementing offloading dependent on capacity of the local network devices.
Claim(s) 4, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukesh et al. (US 12,327,133 B1) and Cappello et al. (US 11,653,167 B2)) and Aggarwal et al. (US 2017/0195980 A1).
(New) The first network device of claim 1, wherein causing the set of one or more outputs associated with the received response although, the prior art failed to specify comprises causing synchronous playback of output via a first playback device and a second playback device.
But it shall be noted Aggarwal et al. disclose of the similar concept related to causing synchronous playback of output via a first playback device and a second playback device (par [47]). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted aspect related to causing synchronous playback of output via a first playback device and a second playback device so as to reduce undesirable effect associated with delay.
The claim(s) 19 which in substance disclose of the similar features as noted in claim(s) 4 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 5, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukesh et al. (US 12,327,133 B1) and Cappello et al. (US 11,653,167 B2)) and Aggarwal et al. (US 2017/0195980 A1) and Burenius (US 10,652,663)
(New) The first network device of claim 4, but the prior art never disclose as wherein the first playback device and the second playback device play back different portions of content.
However, Burenius disclose of concept regarding each of the first and second playback device playing respective portion of content according to its channel (fig.1 (102); col.3 line 15-25) . Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such aspect related to the first playback device and the second playback device play back different portions of content for allowing the speaker to play back its corresponding channel signal associated with the device.
The claim(s) 20 which in substance disclose of the similar features as noted in claim(s) 5 have been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DISLER PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, chin, Vivian can be reached at (571) 272-7848. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DISLER PAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695